Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself.

Read the whole thing. It's quite shocking. Anyone who commented on this case should look back on what they said/wrote with serious circumspection.

162 comments:

Just because she engaged in other criminal acts doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted. Who said that the only way a hooker could testify in court was if they had poor eyesight?The inconsistencies with the asylum application is relevant, but I'm not about to discount the charges.

Does that mean a liar can't be raped? It seems to me the problems turn on her lack of veracity wrt associates, finances, and communications. Wrt rape, the NYT story carries nothing that indicates she's lying there.

The question is essentially this: if a crime happens to a liar, is the crime to be prosecuted. The answer in NYC seems to be no.

Yes, I understand about issues of credibility and the possibility that the sex was consensual. However, is she a good enough liar that she can duplicate the responses of a rape victim?

I liar can be raped, but he/she makes a poor witness, especially if she lied in the course of the investigation. I imagine the conversation with the jailbird, in which she discussed the personal benefits that would accrue to her as a result of the accusation, are pretty relevant. The implication in the article is that she knew who the hotel guest was and decided to capitalize.

It's a he said she said and you will never know the truth, but we're talking presumption of innocence here. Yes, college campuses and other neverlands to the contrary, there still is a presumption of innocence in a rape case.

I was totally ragging on this guy. I don't know why... usually I'm a little better about doubting the case until it's really proven. For some reason, I completely believed this. It could certainly still be the case he assaulted her, btw, but I really should learn my lesson from this. I wonder what it was about this case that really did the trick?

I'm going to make it 6 to 1 against Monsieur Joubert. It doesn't matter how many shady things she may or may not have been involved with, the question is whether or not Strauss-Kahn raped her. Her fellow workers say she acted very traumatized; I'd say that suggests probable cause to believe that she really was raped.

According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.

That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman’s bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.

You've been well trained in Susan Brownmiller's rape hysteria. You might want to start assuming, at least, common decency on the part of other men, no matter how objectionable they seem to you.

Hmm. A lot of people posted between when I started typing on my keyboard and when I clicked on "publish your comment."

I'll stand on what I said; if she was the lowest scum that ever walked the face of the earth, she can still be raped and her rapist needs to be punished.

If, as the Times suggests, Strauss-Kahn is released on his own recognizance, then I can see him flying to France and spending the rest of his life watching the government of France turn down request for extradition after request for extradition.

I can't remember what I said or commented yesterday let alone a few weeks ago. But allow me to issue a comprehensive, retrospective and prospective apology if anyone was offended by any of my comments evah.

But-but-but half the Althouse commentors and Mike Nifong and much of the media and most feminists say women, pure as snow - NEVER LIE about something as traumatic, emotionally devestating, as a vile man who did things...or 4 who ran a train on a shrinking violet whore/stripper while 40 more watched and cheered a gang rape.

At the time this came up, I said consider three words: Crystal Gayle Mangum. Asking Althouse readers to think back and compare the whores life and credibility with the 46 young men she falsely accused. And yet so many BELIEVED HER...they were ideologically driven to. Consider how incredibly improbable this Duke "rape" was, consider she falsely accused others of rape.

Anyhow, Crystal Gayle Mangum is now up for 1st degree murder.

For Strauss, consider the same circumstances, His Muslim accuser is another POS immigrant scuzzball, He is one filthy rich French Jewish financier who has more spending discretion on selecting the best hookers money can buy than Charlie Sheen does.

If he wants control fantasies, he hands 3K to some knockout NYC actress hooking on the side, happy to bend over on command and call Strauss "Daddy".

Yet we see the predictable in 4 of the 5 first posts BELIEVE THE WOMAN! "Just because she is a liar and a crook and a Muslim does not mean her remaining virtue was not savaged by this awful man"

In a world where just about everyone uses drugs, I'm not surprised to learn NYC's hotel staff would be familiar with this stuff. Which comes with the neighborhood.

As to the "accrual of benefits she'd received if she perused her complaint, it really doesn't hold a bag of water.

He could'a been in France before the cops showed up. (And, the only reason the cops found him was his lost cell phone. A call he made to the hotel's front desk. And, a quick-thinking cop's suggestion TO the hotel to say "they'd bring him his lost cell phone."

The defense could point out to judge that this offer was based on a lie. So sue me.

Nothing there that changes my view. He ran away and tried to leave the country - not the actions of an innocent man. It's very likely he chose her because she had things to hide and therefore less likely to make a stink, but it backfired. Wouldn't be surprised if she was supplying drugs to people at the hotel and he heard of it. And, of course, his lawyers are going to put the worst spin on her transgressions.

A few self congratulations, for some bizarre reason, and a few assertions rape should be punished, which frankly... isn't very insightful.

I guess this one is a little hard to process. Why did I fall for this story, and not, say, the Duke hoax, or really various other rape accusations? Something about the attempt to flee, combined with my few of leaders of corrupt and decadent international organizations that would even make use of a suite like that?

The feminist rape nurse interviewing Crystal Gayle Mangum was convinced that Crystal was acting Very Traumatized. And had semen on her panties, in her mouth swabs (turned out from 8 other men NOT the Duke lacrosse players) Media said that just because she had a life of whoredom, criminality, substance abuse and a history about lying about other rapes made it even more imperative to BELIEVE THIS POOR WOMAN!! And let the RAPE TRIAL JURIES decide on guilt.

So the lady in question and her incarcerated boyfriend may have been engaged in drug trafficking -- and they even discussed filing charges against DSK, an elitist banker who lavishly spends mostly US-provided IMF funds for no good reason other than his own hedonistic pleasure.

Since the speculation going on is for free, let me imagine that the hooker was hired, the encounter didn't go well and the banker refused to pay. We all know what happened next.

OK, here’s one of my comments from the intial Althouse posting on this story.

Remember, no weapon reported.

And, I'll repeat, this nearly 60 year old guy somehow is reported to be able to force his dick into the mouth of a 32 year old black woman (recent African immigrant) from the Bronx. Anybody besides me smell scam?

So, the accuser, I think we can assume, is recently arrived from a very rough culture where duking it out is commonplace. She lives in the Bronx, which in some neighborhoods is as tough as a 3rd world country in Africa.

And, she is easily pushed around by a fat, soft old bureaucrat, and just succumbs to giving him a blowjob in the bathroom. I find this hard to believe, and I do share the general belief that this French guy is a gold plated asshole.

Sure, none of this means he is innocent (and given his background, guilt is obviously possible), but when one lives outside the law, one risks an inability to pursue justice for wrongs. If she wants her "he said/she said" charges to stick, she should live a more honest life.

I'm not looking over my old posts, but I'm quite sure I never attacked him. I doubt I attacked his defenders, but if I did, I stand by those posts. His defenders are still scum.

I'm sure that the billlionaire banker will be very grateful to the prosecutor.

This stinks to high heaven.

Was his semen present or not? Did he panic and try to flee without his luggage?

It would appear that justice is for sale.

Clearly the political ramifications of being a leftard hold more sway when you are an uber-wealthy, internationally politically connected banker against a peon with a shady past. Guess who wins. This is the reality of life. The rule is to make as much money and to make as many politically connected friends as possible and your life will more or less be likely cushy and serene. Yeah, sometimes there is a hiccup, but nothing that can't be fixed with enough money and called in favors.

I defended his right to be presumed innocent. I also defended his right to be believed or disbelieved in the same light as the woman.

Boys, this is an object lesson in the stupidity that feminists have beaten into you. Chuck the chivalry bit. Forget that the Frenchman is a piece of shit. Stop saving the damsel in distress.

You might find yourself in the same position one day. And, you'll find yourself suddenly surrounded by a bunch of jackass feminist indoctrinated men calling you a piece of shit who can't possibly be believed.

There is also the problem of the woman realizing what would happen in making this public. I have a feeling she didn't want a lot of attention focused on her. Unless she was really that stupid, she had to understand all this would come out.

This reminds me so much of the Duke lacrosse case--the charges fit the ideological preconceptions of so many people that they didn't even have to do any critical thinking. There was a pre-built pigeon-hole in the their brains in which the charges fit so perfectly that it wasn't really necessary to actually consider the evidence or the credibility of the accuser.

I have also noticed a couple of posts here claiming that Strauss-Kahn must be guilty--otherwise why would he hurriedly flee the country?

At the time of his arrest I remember his attorney (or other people close to Kahn) claiming that contrary to accusations he didn't immediately try to flee the country. His ticket had been purchased in advance. The trip wasn't spur of the moment at all.

They also claimed, truthfully or not, that he didn't directly go from the hotel to the airport as someone conscious of his guilt would have done but rather had a leisurely lunch at a fancy restaurant with his daughter.

My initial reaction was the same as it always is in these high profile cases, that is, I hope she isn't lying because if she is, it just makes it all the more difficult for the women who have legitimate charges.

She may be telling the truth about the assault, but, fair or not, I'll lay money on her character delivering a "not guilty" verdict.

Pidcock: Prosecutors could have pursued the case regardless what they subsequently learned. They haven't.

All hail New York law and order.

Good point (I thought that too). My normal assumption is always that if cops make a mistake in arresting someone they never quit trying to convict the guy anyway--even when DNA evidence points to someone else. It's almost as if cops (and prosecutors) would happily put an innocent man away for life than admit to a mistake.

It seems Strauss-Kahn had a reputation for being rough. The whore that took down Eliot Spitzer even came out and said she'd NEVER take another sexual assignment from DSK. Not. EVER! And, whore know a thing or two about "easy cum." And, violence.

Now, DSK's defense is saying the hotel maid was really a rich pusher. Who only used her job to get clients.

Or some such nonsense.

As to living in harlem and being exposed to drugs ... If you're ever on any New York subway car ... you're exposed to drugs. And, drunks. (Sometimes, people without apartments go there to ride the lines. And, sleep at night.) The motion of the trains practically rock you to sleep, anyway. But don't come on board with valuables.

I don't believe the maid wasn't assaulted.

I do believe the frenchman assaulted the maid AND probably didn't even leave a decent tip!

No. I don't think the lack of a tip for room service is what set the maid screaming.

And, you also have to remember she passed the RAPE KIT TEST!

If you think you can do this just by getting spritzed by a customer ... you don't know reality.

I still believe the maid.

Yet, I don't believe the Chief Justice of Wisconsin's Supreme Court at all. (Even though she acts like "grandma." She'd never have gotten my vote.)

The New York Times is a crap newspaper. One with a worse agenda than the one Emily Leticia Mills scribes for.

Painting the victim as an unworthy person is as old a trick as legal counsel has ever learned to use. The VICTIM always gets the justice from a Court. DSK and his minions have set a stage of props and scenery to make DSK look like he is more the victim than she is now. You know, like DSK was the victim every other time he sexually attacked a women.

Precisely the opposite, a decent advocate should assume nothing with regards to truth or fairness; to do so would perhaps impugn one's ability to most well represent an advocate's point of view for a paying customer.

Truth is a concept for the corrupt. The only truth is determined, democratically, via 9 black robes, as per our constitution.

In a he said/she case it's impossible to achieve guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without some real outside evidence. I don't know how anyone can come to a conclusion on a case like this without evidence. Anything else just shows your biases.

I personally had a former girl friend fake an injury and claim I caused it by hitting her with a door. It was a case where she hurt herself and then tried to get me fired over it. Humans are capable of the craziest lies when they see a benefit to themselves. Don't be so quick to judge.

Off-topic, Bill Pascoe did a devestating critique of John McCain and the remaining neocons slamming Obama and all the REpublican candidates save Pawlenty for "not standing up for our military standing up for freedom of people in Libya and other lands, as Reagan did.

Pascoe said Reagan believed he had been hoodwinked by Israel into involvement in Lebanon, only invaded Grenada to protect Americans there and the 'liberation' of the noble democracy-loving Grenadians was simply incidental.After Reagan left office, he published a Reagan Doctrine for use of force strongly at odds with Bush-McCain-Neocon wars of Empire, uplift and humanitarianism for the invaded people, and adventure.

“Our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future Presidents,” Reagan wrote. “The policy we adopted included these principles:

“1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

“2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

“3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.

“4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.”

Reagan knew it wasn’t his job to send U.S. armed forces to overthrow autocratic regimes willy-nilly just because the people who lived under the boot yearned for freedom; it was his job to safeguard the lives of American citizens and protect U.S. strategic interests.

With Iraq and nation-building Afghanistan with no goal, Bush and McCain betrayed Reagan's rules of force as much as Obama did getting us involved in the Libyan fracas or Bill Clinton's "humanitarian military interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia".

I'm just glad this is comment number 67, and not two later, or else who know what the NY Times would write about me? It's hard to know what their angle would be onthis case. I always assume now that they have an angle that they are protecting or attacking, and that the noose that they tighten around a story is done accordingly. Any noose that fits in the case of the housekeeper, I should think. I wouldn't put it past them to take a bribe from Straus-Con.

Feminist rape expert nurse Tara Levincy swore that the presence of a bruise on Crystal Gayle Mangum and crusted cum on her cloths and semen in her "undoubtedly amounted to positive confirmation of rape".(All 8 different cumshots in, on her and her clothes came from her paying customers and assorted boyfriends...not the Duke lacrosse players)

Carol - "If you think you can do this just by getting spritzed by a customer ... you don't know reality." Reality was Crystal or more aptly, Crustal Mangum, got the feminist nurse believing her simply from her word and being "spritzed" by 8 cumshots.

Carol - "I still believe the maid."

Good for you! Many blacks and feminists still believe Crustal Mangum was the victim of privileged evil white penis-wielders even as she sits awaiting trial for 1st degree murder.That is what happens when feminist cows and the men and women they make rape politics syncophants of, are committed to BELIEVE THE WOMAN NO MATTER WHAT. As evidence collapses, they will not let go of their emotional belief in the Accuser.

The new information reported by the Times supports the inference that someone the maid consorts with has used a bank account in her name to finance his marijuana dealing. So we can now presume that she has one or more unsavory friends.

The only fact I can find in the entire article that directly involves her own behavior is this:

According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him.

Now, this reporter is so sloppy--intentionally?-- that we don't know whether this conversation occurred a day before or a day after the "encounter" with DSK. But it seems clear that it must have transpired a day after, since otherwise she'd be under investigation for a criminal conspiracy against DSK.

What, exactly, is the big deal about weighing the personal costs and benefits of pressing charges against someone you now discover to be a powerful and well-connected politician? What kind of utter fool would she have to be NOT to have thought about this? It was always clear enough that there would be costs of pressing on--as indicated by what has in fact happened. So there would HAVE to be offsetting benefits in order for a rational person to pursue the matter.

The term "benefits" is so vague--they could range from one's feelings at seeing justice done, to the possibility of extortion--that without further details it is nearly meaningless.

There is a big difference between prosecutors deciding that they don't want to risk losing a high-profile case with an easily impeachable key witness, and inferring from this that DSK is innocent.

The new information reported by the Times supports the inference that someone the maid consorts with has used a bank account in her name to finance his marijuana dealing. So we can now presume that she has one or more unsavory friends.

No, we can now presume that she has committed at least one crime... money laundering. And, she may be directly involved in the marijuana dealing.

The location of the hotel, right in the middle of Times Square, was yet another reason I doubted this story.

Times Square is the historic center of the sex business in NYC. Before Rudi Giulani, prostitution, sex shows and drugs were peddled openly in the streets and shops (and hotels) of Times Square.

This trade has been going on in this area for a long time. I know that authorities have been trying to clean up the area for some time. But, old practices do not disappear overnight.

So, I figure this hotel probably might not be above providing its customers with a little on the side, or that the help might be so inclined. That's been common practice in Times Square for a very long time.

In all probability the woman is also being threatened with deportation. And, someone in the prosecutor's office has been promised a great job, if only "something happens" and the witness is disqualified. If they just can't get her back to Africa in time.

What happens next?

Depends on the prosecutors.

Not so much the judge. You can purchase a judge with a promise for a free trip to paris.

Dumping this into the "slow news cycle" is probably an attempt to get the matter UNDER THE RUG.

But will it be forgotten?

Most people who have ever stayed at a hotel don't think of the chamber maids as dishonest. They don't rob your belongings when you're out of the room. And, for a two dollar tip they'll give you extra towels.

A fancy hotel wouldn't want to accommodate a maid, and lose a high end customer.

But ya know what I remember about Crystal Mangum? Mike Nifong.

And, the law professors at Duke. A dishonorable bunch of people you could probably collect, easily in academia. But this truth has been swept under the rug.

And, denied.

I don't believe those denials for a minute.

Maybe, it's because I've always had great maid service whenever I've stayed at a hotel ...

While for guys, if they want sex, there's supposed to ask the bellhops.

Well, it should be interesting, ahead to see what the judge does. Most people held at Rikers because they're a flight risk ... don't get to live up in $250,000 a month accommodations.

How people can think the maid did this for money, when she was terrified she'd lose her job.

And, it's worse if she gets deported.

Which shows ya that our laws are being abused by the very people we've invested with authority.

Hope the New York City judge captures himself before he morphs into Shirley Arbrahamson.

If we once had a great system; it doesn't smell like that anymore.

As to conviction ... that's gonna be up to twelve people who get selected to serve on the jury. If we're lucky, none of them are exposed to the New Yoke Times.

Just because there was evidence of sex does not mean it wasn't consensual.

But the odd thing, if I recall correctly, is that when Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested, his initial claim was that nothing happened, not that she was a hooker whom he had just ... ah, interacted with. In other words, he behaved more like a rapist than a john. Now, perhaps he didn't want to admit that he had engaged the services of a prostitute, but as far as I'm aware he still hasn't given that as an explanation.

As far as the phone call with her boyfriend is concerned, why wouldn't a maid who had been raped want to soak the perpetrator for all he was worth? Some of you make it seem as if it's a huge surprise that she would want some kind of payoff instead of saying piously "Oh, nothing for me, thanks -- I'll be satisfied by simply knowing that this miscreant will be severely punished!"

For travelers with a penchant for action, Times Square (and its hotels) is known as the place to go.

shouting thomas, I grew up going to Times Square and being amazed (as a teenage boy) by the decadence. I went back last November and where there was porn there were Disney musicals, Hersey kisses, and Forever 21.

Gentle readers, I am impressed with the NY Police. I think the discussed possibility of a sexual encounter arose when he emerged naked from the bathroom; that initial encounter surprised both of them. Some consensual agreement was reached but DSK was more aggressive than she expected and she was angry which led to her behavior which over time incorporated her accustomed criminal behavior. I believe I misjudged the situation. It is a lesson on how you can fit into somebody's 'tyrant profile' and be unjustly judged.

The alleged rape victim discussed, with her fiance, what the consequences would be to her life if she went forward with rape charges as opposed to letting the charges go.

Somehow, this proves she's a lying gold-digging whore?

The characterization of the conversation ("According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him.") is vague. People want to know what's going to happen to them if they press charges.

When they did the rape exam they would have seen if she had fresh injuries. There are too many facts still unknown here to make any judgments.

It would be interesting to see just how damning the conversation with the convict was. I can imagine it being anything from innocuous to a budding conspiracy. I can also imagine a prosecutor leaking such things to get out of a tough case against a powerful man.

But what was the guy doing having sex with the maid? Even Clinton used an intern/groupie and he did not have a lick of sense about such things. How does one just help themselves to the maid? Or did she come onto him? Why? If it was in hopes of getting money then why did she reportedly turn down offers to settle?

The French have a very class based society and those at the bottom are expected to come to heel. One of the girls I grew up with lives there and she says the way women are treated isn't very pretty. We saw some of this with the support Polanski received for his drugging and rape of a minor.

"I didn't get a blowjob from her, but if I did, there was no force involved, and if there was force involved I paid her in advance for it and we had a 'safe word,' and if I didn't pay her in advance then it was just a misunderstanding, and if it wasn't a misunderstanding then she's a money laundering immigrant"

Is that the position of an innocent man? Hedging his bets to see how much he can get away with not admitting? He's hiding something. It can't be just prostitution, the French are very tolerant of that.

If the NYT story is accurate, I would not vote for conviction as a juror.....A woman who can negotiate a trip from equitorial Africa to legal immigrant status in NYC is not without craft, savvy, and daring....I tended to believe her story, because she would have to be absurdly stupid to file such a charge against a powerful man unless truth and an unblemished record were on her side. Well, there you are. She's absurdly stupid. Even people with street smarts can suffer from hubris.....I believed her story, but I did marvel that DSK was able to step out of the shower, see a chambermaid, and be stricken with uncontrollable lust. I'm in my sixties also. That's not the way it works.....Shouting Thomas and (God help us) Cedarford may turn out to be right, and the rest of us may turn out to be insufficiently cynical or, perhaps, just cynical about the wrong people....There is sufficient evidence that DSK is an arrogant prick with a past record of sexual trangressions. But that doesn't mean he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of rape in this particular case.....We'll never know what really happened. The career of DSK is ruined. The maid also will be a net loser. Very few stories have an edifying moral and certainly not this one.

"the story says that the police recorded her conversation with another inmate in which she said that she might profit from bringing charges."

Yep. Because it's extraordinary to consider demanding money after someone injures you. Especially when the injuror has a lot of money and the injuree doesn't have any.

The fact that she has a sketchy background has no bearing on the truth of this case. It sounds to me like a prosecutor got paid, and now we are going to tell this woman that she is not personally good enough to expect justice. Really pathetic, guys. And Althouse, I expected better feminism from you.

"Anyone who commented on this case should look back on what they said/wrote with serious circumspection."

Why? Just because the NY Times found some "lies" on a visa application?

Nothing I read in this story indicates Strauss-Kahn's innocence.

What I have predicted, from the very beginning and with absolute conviction, was that Dominque Strauss-Kahn would never see the inside of a courtroom in the United States.

And I was right.

We live in a lawless society where the rich and powerful (as long as you're a Democrat or a Socialist) no longer live by the laws of our society.

The NY Times, perhaps the premiere newspaper among Socialists in the United States, has successfully dug deep enough to slime Strauss-Kahn's rape victim to the point where prosecutors now have license to not prosecute the man.

To NOT do their jobs.

To NOT present a case.

To NOT allow a jury to do its job.

To PREVENT a prosecution.

They're looking for ANY REASON to allow him to walk and they've now got one, so he'll walk, as I predicted all along.

Powerful Socialists in the United States, up to and including President Barack Obama, are free to commit any crime they want in this country and they can rest assured that they will never see the inside of a courtroom.

Our society is fucking doomed because there are no longer Americans willing to stand up and save it.

NY Times:"Since her initial allegation on May 14, the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said."

So, one inside source (if that source really exists) tells the NY Times that the accuser has repeatedly lied.

But lied about what? Lied on a visa application.

We've all repeatedly lied, haven't we? In our lives. About various things. Dig deep enough and no matter who you're talking about you'll find they have, at some point in their lives, lied about something.

Every immigrant to this country seeking asylum has lied on their visa application. It's the ONLY WAY they can get in.

This NY Times report is really sickening in the way it is couched.

Take, for example, this line: "Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself."

The story itself, however, never quotes these prosecutors. Never buttresses this claim. It just states it and we're expected to trust them.

It's pretty obvious when a fix is in and there's definitely a fix in on this case. We all knew there would be. No rich, famous billionaire is going to go on trial in the United States of Bribery.

The NY Times is doing everything it can to ensure that their top Socialist is freed.

And, it seems like only yesterday that the NYT was publishing stories about how the woman was that great patron saints of feminists: the single working mother!

Suckers!

Now, I'm not saying that this Frenchie isn't a piece of shit.

Hear, hear! The rest of you DO sound like chumps next to the counsel of ST. I too thought the guy was guilty, and don't feel bad about it, because he's a known piece of french shit and who ALWAYS knows WTF in the NewAge where duality is celebrated and right and wrong are suspect? You make your bed,...(no pun intended but there it is.)

All men would be on firmer ground if they took BEING MEN more seriously. ST is just making it clear that most of you are still stuck on pussy - whether it's being one or getting some - and that's a major failing.

"I'm afraid nevadabob has an excellent point. Stop and think, people. We're trusting the New York Times to give us accurate, complete, unbiased information? Really?"

I'm trying to read this story critically, because there are multiple dead giveaways in this story:

Dead Giveaway #1:Sole-sourcing

"Since her initial allegation on May 14, the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said."

So, a single source claims she has "repeatedly lied" but interestingly this paragraph doesn't say WHAT she's lied about. This paragraph is deliberately written to make you believe that the victim is lying about the rape, but it doesn't actually say that.

Dead Giveaway #2:No real attempt at balance

The NY Times waited until Thursday evening - AFTER WORK HOURS - to attempt to contact the victim's attorney. Of course, they couldn't contact the victim's lawyer. No problem. Run the story any way. They made no attempt to interview the victim herself, according to the story.

Dead Giveaway #3:Nobody wants to go on the record

The Times claims two sources, but refuses to identify them in any way other than to say they are "law enforcement sources." For all we know, they're beat cops. The accepted rule in journalism is that if a source wants to libel someone, they won't speak on the record.

Dead Giveaway #4:Lies about one thing extrapolated to another thing

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has NEVER lied about something. So it's been clear from the beginning that Strauss-Kahn's legal team would attempt to impeach the credibility of this victim. Their initial attempts were to buy her silence by bribing her family back in her home country. But those attempts failed.

So they've found discrepancies in her asylum application; but that is hardly uncommon. The way you get asylum in this country is to exaggerate persecution in your home country. This sort of exaggeration is hardly evidence of Strauss-Kahn's innocence.

Dead Giveaway #5:Lack of context.

The NY Times spent ZERO paragraphs rehashing the long-standing and public accusations of rape and lechery regarding Strauss-Kahn. It's common knowledge that Strauss-Kahn has raped before. Former victims have come forward with public stories of their rapes. Yet the NY Times did not mention this in their story.

If you read this story with a critical eye, you can begin to see it for what it is. It's a very carefully crafted attempt to secure Strauss-Kahn's release from his bail conditions, first, and then to get prosecutors to drop the case.

nevadabob, you've lost it completely. You're going to have a stroke if you keep it up.

From the Times story:

In addition, one of the officials said, she told investigators that her application for asylum included mention of a previous rape, but there was no such account in the application. She also told them that she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her account to the investigators differed from what was contained in the asylum application.

Hmmm...

So our heroic working single mother has a habit of making rape allegations! Who woulda thunk it?

And, she knows just how to wangle the U.S. system with phony stories of genital mutilation... a story that plucks feminist's heart strings. Now, who woulda thunk that?

Serial con artist and small time criminal vs. Frenchie piece of shit. No good guy in this story. And, probably no rape.

To his credit, Rick Moran of American Thinker was one observer who didn't join the herd mentality when Strauss-Kahn was charged.

He wrote: "Label me a cynic, but there may be more than meets the eye to the shocking news that the head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was hauled off a plane bound for France by New York police and subsequently charged with assaulting a hotel maid."

Moran went onto write that the story being told by the maid "doesn't ring true and perhaps there is something else we're not being told."

Shouting Thomas, trust me I know that people are complicated. What I was saying is that alone does not prove or disprove that a crime was committed (although credibility issues with the alleged victim make proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt difficult). That is why we have trials.

I do not consider DSK a victim of false accusations (yet). He might be, or he might be a guy looking for action in Times Square who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or he might be a monster. That is why we have trials.

But I agree with Crack that if people acted more like adults they would tend avoid situations like this one.

This doesn't mean he is innocent. It just means he got very lucky in choosing his victim. Further, even if he is innocent of rape, he is absolutely sick and irresponsible. What kind of a person has sex with a random hotel maid? Especially someone in his position with so much to lose and so many enemies?

This doesn't mean he is innocent. It just means he got very lucky in choosing his victim. Further, even if he is innocent of rape, he is absolutely sick and irresponsible. What kind of a person has sex with a random hotel maid? Especially someone in his position with so much to lose and so many enemies?

The naiveté of this comment is unbelievable.

Obsessively horny people will do most anything.

When people start talking like this, the alarm goes off in the back of my head. The commenter is conning us or conning himself.

What kind of a person has sex with a random hotel maid?

A really horny guy who likes things spontaneous and a little spooky.

Especially someone in his position with so much to lose and so many enemies?

Daring fate is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Sex takes us back to that wild animal rumble in the jungle. Nice, socially approved sex is such a bore. Ask Tight Ass.

Thomas you are an idiot of the first order. If you lack control of your sexual urges to such an extent that you can't resist having sex with a random maid, you have mental issues. Part of being an adjusted normal human being is controling your urges. Kahn clearly is some kind of a devient. Why you feel the need to defend this clown is beyond me.

@shoutingthomas, I knocked off early last night and missed your foolish rejoinder.

I have this naive notion about something called justice. And once upon a time it meant that it didn't matter whether the perpetrators were wealthy and well-connected, or the victims were low-class and utterly sleazy, or both. There's a reason why Justice is portrayed with a blindfold.

I blame worthless judges who figure out how they want the case to come out, and work backwards bending the law as they go, and I blame worthless law school professors who encourage that behavior. (I'll leave it for Professor Althouse to decide whether she is included in that category.)

If this is the direction we as a country want to go in then, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, I might as well move to Russia, where I can take my despotism straight.

And once upon a time it meant that it didn't matter whether the perpetrators were wealthy and well-connected, or the victims were low-class and utterly sleazy, or both. There's a reason why Justice is portrayed with a blindfold.

Indeed. From the article, it sounds like she has a bad bf. That doesn't really say if she was attacked or not. I would like to hear more from the police on that point, since there is absolutely proof of a sexual encounter is there proof it was violent?, rather than DSK's lawyers strategy which is a pretty useless way to end an article.

I have this naive notion about something called justice. And once upon a time it meant that it didn't matter whether the perpetrators were wealthy and well-connected, or the victims were low-class and utterly sleazy, or both. There's a reason why Justice is portrayed with a blindfold.

The problem with this, Big Mike, is that you don't know if a crime was committed.

So, you don't know whether there is a perpetrator or a victim.

The sole witness is involved in money laundering, peripherally involved in marijuana dealing, lied on her immigration application that she had been raped and lied that she had suffered genital mutilation.

She also apparently lied that she was AIDS infected in order to get federally subsidized housing.

@Fred4Pres: I dunno. Some of the stuff they sell at Forever 21 looks kinda decadent to me.

Even from the most agnostic standpoint, DSK does not come out of this looking like a hero. He had furtive sex with a hotel maid? He paid a maid/hooker for sex? Oh, and he's a fabulously rich "Socialist" who's supposed to be on the side of the dispossessed/downtrodden?

So the continued contempt for the man is understandable.

Nonetheless, the 'victim's credibility is largely shot. Easy for her to make a mark of some rich dude, attempt blackmail, he demurs & panics, she goes to plan B.

The proletariate can be a bitch. Justice isn't obliged to take its word on anything.

I suspect that Althouse's point is that he's entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

And I agree, of course; but he was entitled to that before these alleged revelations about the accuser.

I'll reserve my judgment about these shady dealings, too. So she called her boyfriend, who was in prison, for advice on what to do; not surprising that she didn't reflexively immediately go to the cops, if she'd been involved with drug dealing before. Maybe the boyfriend tossed out the idea of money to be made.

It doesn't mean she couldn't have been raped. It's not open season on anyone with a record. In my mind, this past "shadiness" of the accuser only makes her story more plausible, as it explains why the assault wasn't immediately reported.

The article still tells us nothing new about DSK's innocence or guilt. Only that it will be more difficult to establish whether he was innocent or guilty.

Also they're too vague. The woman has 'possible links' to drug dealers. She had a conversation, after the fact, about whether it would be good to pursue charges, but so far no evidence that she had previously gotten someone's advice about whether it would be beneficial to make up charges (or, as DSK's supporters accused, that she must have been in cahoots with his political enemies).

Here is ABC:There's likely to be an extensive disclosure of issues that raise significant questions about the accuser's character but do not necessarily throw into doubt that the assault itself took place.

I think that pretty much sums it up. They can't use her as a creditable witness. It doesn't tell us what actually happened in that hotel room and how to account for DSK's fishy behavior that day and changes in his own story from the start (which the articles conveniently leave out).

ST...You have done an excellent job in this thread of resetting the stage with new backdrops, new stage props and new lighting all carefully repainted to show the female Perpetrator as a great and terrible liar and her victim as an innocent French tourist. You have a real talent. But that only works when the Jury doesn't get an overnight to sleep on it and awake the next day seeing clearly that the issue is whether there was a crime committed by the defendant. The sudden slimy appearance of the victim is not an issue at all. Confusion has a quick halflife.

ST...You have done an excellent job in this thread of resetting the stage with new backdrops, new stage props and new lighting all carefully repainted to show the female Perpetrator as a great and terrible liar and her victim as an innocent French tourist.

I did not such thing. I've repeatedly stated that DSK is a piece of shit. He's just the sort of piece of shit I'd love to punch in the jaw.

Shouting Thomas, am I allowed, then, to rape any woman I can find who has a criminal record and/or acquaintances in prison, as long as they're the only witness?

So it's open-season on them then, is it?

What's wrong with your brain? What are you hoping to accomplish here?

What's relevant to this case is that there is no competent and reliable witness to prove a rape allegation.

And, you've got it backward, in terms of who is in jeopardy. Remember the Duke Lacrosse case?

Cool down and try thinking. What in the world are you trying to prove?

I'll tell you one thing I'm pretty sure about this woman. She knows how to fight and take care of herself. She's recently arrived from a country where duking it out in the street is common, and she lives in the Bronx. Her fiance is a big time pot dealer, and she helps him with the money laundering.

If I took an oath as a juror, I could not vote to convict DSK. He is not an innocent man, but one cannot say that beyond a reasonable doubt he is a rapist. Those who still want his scalp can take comfort in knowing that his reputation is in ruins and his career destroyed. Those who think the maid is some kind of scam artist can console themselves with the fact that this woman will soon be deported and that her boyfriend will face much tougher criminal charges. I can't see any winner here. I can't even figure out the biggest loser......Bad pun: She made his bed and now she must lie in it.

I am in total agreement with William--there is, apparently, dna evidence that a sexual encounter took place--beyond that, there is nothing that would convince me, were I a juror in this case, that would overcome the requirement of reasonable doubt. Good time to consider the Scottish verdict of "no proven."

" ... were I a juror in this case, that would overcome the requirement of reasonable doubt."

You'll never get that chance because the fix is in. No jury will ever hear any evidence in this case.

Prosecutors are not required to try rapists. Even when they've been indicted by a grand jury. Sorry women. You're shit out of luck. Better go back to wearing chastity belts.

Strauss-Kahn is going to get away with his rape-rape because he's rich, he's a powerful Jew with billions of US tax dollars at his disposal and because he's a Socialist with co-conspirators at the New York Times.

Ladies ... stay away from this fucker. He's raped in the past. He raped here. He'll rape you in the future if you let him get close enough to you.

I'm just pointing out that it's still possible to rape a woman, even if she has a boyfriend in jail, even if she's helped him launder drug money.

And so it should still be possible to convict someone of that rape. It certainly raises the bar for evidence, since her testimony becomes tainted; but I wouldn't acquit the guy just yet. I seem to remember hearing about a pattern of behavior and several other similar situations involving this guy.

And notwithstanding nevadabob's rather strange mention of the Jewishness of the defendant (??!), he is right about one thing: The writers of this article seem to have been bought-and-paid-for by the defense. This article stinks on ice.

Shouting Thomas, am I allowed, then, to rape any woman I can find who has a criminal record and/or acquaintances in prison, as long as they're the only witness?

Alice Seabold wrote a book about being raped in college. In it, she mentions that the prosecutor told her that because she was a virgin and they basically couldn't find anything in her past to discredit her that she was "Lucky" (which is the name of the book). This is how rape trials work, because it's very difficult to prove a he said/she said case.

They already proved that sex happened between strangers but the rest? May be impossible to prove.

The only thing I said was that the most shocking part of the case is that it involved a socialist who wants to tell you how to live your life (hint: in poverty and subservience while he and the other technocrats swank about at various global confabs) staying at a $3,000/night hotel.

Although I guess it's not shocking now that you think about it. More infuriating, really.

Once my Dad visited my college apartment and looked at all the centerfolds and pinups on the walls. He said, “Son, you ought to get your mind out of the gutter.” I said that I had never done it in the gutter. He said, “You ought to try it some time.” We both laughed.

--How could the maid have been trying to set DSK up when he was supposed to have already left the room?

--If she was genuinely surprised by his presence, why would she willingly perform oral sex on some wrinkled old man? If he paid her, why not tell the police that he thought she was turning tricks on the side. In fact, whether he paid her or not, this would be a pretty good strategy.

--If DSK was totally innocent, why would he leave half his things in a hotel suite and try to fly off to France?

DSK also lied initially about even seeing the maid and claimed he was having lunch with his daughter. So he is also a known liar. He has also been credibly accused of sexual assault prior to this.

Initial reports indicated some violence. I would like to know what the police have in terms of bruising, scratch marks or damaged clothing and hotel furnishings.